Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava @ Rajesh Kumar & ... vs State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2008
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.46 OF 1998 (S.J.)
---
Against the Judgment and order dated 17.1.1998 passed by
Sri Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, Additional Sessions Judge,
Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No.1050 of 1994.
---
1.SANJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
@ RAJESH KUMAR
2.Manoj Kumar Singh @ Navin Kumar Singh
3.Sanjay Kumar Thakur ........................... Appellants.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------- Respondent.
For the appellants: Mrs.Rina Sinha,
For the State : Mr.S.N.Prasad, A.P.P.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH S.P.Singh,J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P.
2. All the three appellants have been convicted under section 489 (D) of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- within six months and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year each.
3. On 27.5.1994 at about 1.45 A.M. one Satrughan Chaudhary, constable, lodged a fardbeyan with officer - in - Charge of Chapra G.R.P.S. (P.W.2) stating therein that he saw four persons in suspicious condition hiding near about Platform No.1. He found appellant no.1 Sanjay Kumar Srivastava holding a attaché in his hand. Thereupon he informed the T.C. on duty. On interrogation the accused persons were found ticketless. In the meantime P.W.2, Officer - in - Charge, Birendra Singh and one Sri R.P.Upadhaya, Sub Inspector, arrived. The Officer - in - Charge 2 searched his attaché and found two instruments for counterfeiting 20 rupees note and some used clothes. The aforesaid articles were seized. On enquiry the appellant Sanjay Kumar Srivastava disclosed that they had purchased two instruments for one Dhirendra Giri and his brother, who used to manufacture fake currency notes in their press.
4. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet. under sections 489A, 489D, 419 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. After cognizance charge was framed only under section489 D of I.P.C. to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and faced the trial.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan (Ext.2) a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn up. The signature of the informant on the fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.4.
6. The prosecution has examined four witnesses in its support and the said two instruments for counterfeiting 20 rupees note have been marked as material Ext.1 and material Ext.1/a respectively.
7. The defence filed two toy notes, one is of Rs.500/-, and another of Rs.2/-, and the same have been exhibited and marked as material Ext.A and material Ext.A/1.
8. The prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Prabhunath Pandey who was then posted as T.C.of Chapra Railway Station, P.W.2 Birendra Singh, the Officer - in - Charge of G.R. P.S. Chapra Station, P.W.3, Shatrughan Chaudhary who is the informant himself and P.W.4 Rama Kant Upadhaya, Sub Inspector of G.R.P.S. of Chapra Railway Station who is the I.O. of this case.
9. The informant, P.W.3, has supported the allegations made in the F.I.R., and he has stated that the appellants were seen in 3 suspicious circumstances with an attaché on platform no.1 near the over bridge of Chapra Railway Station. With the help of P.W.1, the appellants were searched and found ticketless.He further stated that the said attaché contained two pieces of instruments for counterfeiting 20 rupees note.
10. P.W.1 Prabhunath Pandey who was T.C.of Chapra Station then, stated that on intimation of P.W.3 he came to platform no.1 and apprehended four accused persons who were not having any ticket. He stated that in the meantime P.W.2 came and seized the attaché containing two instruments for counterfeiting fake currency note of Rs.20/-. One of the instruments was used for printing front side and another was for printing back side of the rupee.
11. P.W.2, Officer Incharge, also supported the prosecution case. He stated that two instruments for manufacturing fake currency note were seized, the size of which was 5½" in length and 2½" in breadth. It exactly matched with the size of note of Rs.20/-. He stated that the said instruments were having coated plastic like metal.
12. P.W.4, I.O.of the case has also supported the prosecution case.He stated that the said instruments have front and back portion in reverse. Front side portion of the instrument has number as 98 D-509913 in reverse, and back side portion of the instrument has 'Bahul Chakra' . The words ' Bhartiya Reserve Bank' 'Bis Rupya' were also on the print.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, it has come in the evidence that the accused persons purchased instruments in question at the instance of their employer one Dhirendra Kumar Giri and his brother. He submits that 4 non-examination of Dhirendra Kumar Giri and his brother cuts at the root of the prosecution. He further submits that the seizure list witnesses were not examined nor an opinion of an expert was taken, as to whether the instruments was used for manufacturing 20 rupee fake note or whether it was used for preparing toy notes. On the other hand, he submits that the evidence of P.W.1, the T.C. is at variance with that of P.W.3.
14. Learned Addl P.P. submits that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have fully supported the prosecution case. It has come in evidence that instruments had all the necessary ingredients for printing a fake Rs.20/- note and the size of the same matched with the size of Note of Rs.20/-. He submits that P.W.1 has supported the seizure of the instruments from the appellants.
15. The main question involved in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under section section 489 (D) of the I.P.C., against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. P.W.3 in his evidence has supported the prosecution case. P.W.1 on seeing some persons loitering with an attaché in suspicious circumstances at about 1.45 A.M. on 27.5.1994 made an intimation to P.W.1 a T.C. who was in the vicinity.On scrutiny, the accused appellants were found without any ticket. In the meantime P.W.2 the Officer -in - Charge of Chapra Station also came and seized attaché containing two instruments for printing 20 rupee fake note currency. The instruments were fully equipped to print a Rs.20/- note with full similarity. P.W.2, Officer Incharge, also supported the prosecution case and the two seized instruments were produced in court as material Ext. A and A/1. He has categorically stated the size of the instruments to be 5 ½" in length and 2 ½ " in breadth. This Court also got opened the seal of the box containing the instruments and 5 found that the same had embossing of twenty rupee nots of printing a Rs.20/- note. The evidence of P.Ws finds support from evidence of P.W.4, the I.O.
16. There is some difference in respect of the evidence of P.W.1, T.C. vis-à-vis evidence of other witnesses. For instance P.W.1 has stated that the occurrence took place at 10 P.M. in the night whereas P.W.3, the informant stated that the occurrence took place at 1.45 A.M.. Thus, difference in perception of time estimated by P.W.1 will not weaken the prosecution case, as other witnesses ,namely, P.W.2,3, and 4 have fully supported the time of occurrence. For the same reason the evidence of P.W.1 that the size of instruments is 1' in length will also not cut at the root of the prosecution case. Even if I hold the testimony of P.W.11 to be unreliable the evidence of other witnesses coupled with material Exts. proves the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. This Court on perusal of evidence on record finds that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 498D against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. This takes me to the next question as to the quantum of sentence that is to be handed to the appellants . I find that this is the first offence of the appellants and the occurrence took place 13 years ago. It could be possible that they might have been working for one Dhirendra Kumar Giri and his brother who have not been interrogated by the police which is a serious lapse. In view of the aforesaid back drops, this Court is of the view that further imprisonment of three months, apart from the period already undergone would be an adequate punishment. If the appellants have already paid fine of Rs.5,000/- as per direction of this Court dated 26.3.1998 no further fine would be required to be paid. 6
18. In the result, the appeal fails. This Court upholds conviction under section 489D of I.P.C. passed by the learned trial court with aforesaid modification in sentence as ordered above.The bail bond of the three appellants are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the court below to serve the remaining sentence of three months.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.) Patna High Court,Patna The 29th July,2008 AnilKr.Sinha/N.A.F.R.